THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE G.M. MOHIUDDIN

M.A.C.M.A.No.241 OF 2020

JUDGMENT:

This appeal is filed under Section 173 of Motor Vehicles Act,

1988 (for short, ‘the Act’) by the appellant/petitioner aggrieved by the Order and decree dated 31.12.2019 passed in M.V.O.P.No.269 of 2013 by the learned Chairman, Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal (VIII Additional District Judge) at Nizamabad (for short, ‘the

Tribunal’) seeking enhancement of compensation.

2. The brief facts of the case are that the appellant has filed the claim petition claiming compensation of Rs.10,00,000/- from the respondents for the injuries sustained by him in a motor vehicle accident. It is stated that on 13.11.2011, the appellant along with other passenger was travelling in an auto bearing No.AP-25-X- 0213 towards Kalyapur Village from Navipet. When the auto reached near Ashoknagar, the driver of the aforesaid auto and the driver of another auto bearing No.AP-25-V-5551, which was proceeding in the opposite direction, drove their respective autos in a rash and negligent manner at high speed and dashed against each other. As a result of the impact, the auto overturned, due to which the appellant sustained fracture of right femur, injuries to scalp, hands, head and multiple injuries all over the body. Immediately, after the accident, the petitioner was shifted to Amrutha Laxmi Hospital, Nizamabad where the petitioner was

treated as an inpatient from 13.11.2011 to 25.11.2011 and underwent an operation wherein a steel rod was inserted. Even after being discharged, the petitioner continued receiving medical care in private hospitals and incurred huge medical expenses towards medicines and extra nourishment. Based on a complaint, the Police, Navipet Police Station, Nizamabad District registered a case in Crime No.285 of 2011 under Section 337 of IPC against the driver of crime vehicle and after thorough investigation filed Charge Sheet.

3. It is further stated that at the time of accident, the appellant/petitioner was aged about 41 years and was engaged in agriculture and labour work and used to earn more than Rs.10,000/- per month. However, due to the said accident, the appellant/petitioner lost his earning capacity and sustained permanent disability. It is further stated that the appellant/petitioner had also spent more than Rs.2,50,000/- for treatment and medical expenses and spent huge amount for transportation and other expenses including extra nourishment, pain and sufferings and for follow-up treatments in private hospitals.

4. Before the Tribunal, respondent Nos.1 and 3 were set ex parte. Respondent No.2-Reliance General Insurance Company (i.e., insurer of respondent No.1 Auto rickshaw bearing No.AP-25- X-0213) filed counter denying the age, income and avocation, earning capacity of the appellant and averments of the claim petition and contended that the alleged accident had not occurred due to rash and negligent driving by the driver of the insured/crime vehicle.

5. It is further contended that the true cause of accident was due to the negligent and recklessness driving by the driver of crime vehicle (i.e., Auto Rickshaw bearing No.AP-25-U-5551). However, they contended that the appellant colluding with the police, falsely implicated the Auto rickshaw bearing No.AP-25-X-0213 for wrongful gain. It is further contended that compensation claimed is excessive, exorbitant and prayed to dismiss the claim petition.

5.1 Respondent No.4-Shriram General Insurance Company (i.e., insurer of respondent No.3 Auto rickshaw bearing No.AP-25-V- 5551) filed counter denying the age, income and avocation, earning capacity of appellant/petitioner, involvement of crime vehicle and averments of the claim petition and contended that the crime vehicle was never insured and no policy vide cover note No.948842 (valid from 04.02.2011 to 03.02.2012) was issued in favour of respondent No.3 and called for strict proof of the same. It is further contended that compensation claimed is excessive, exorbit